PlanetCatfish.com

I propose a naming scheme based on available information for varieties of Ancistrus cf. cirrhosus (BN’s). Several posts I have found including my own http://www.planetcatfish.com/forum/view ... es#p279782 have asked the question is there an number of, or listing of the many varieties of Ancistrus Bn’s. I propose the following variety designations of Ancistrus cf. cirrhosus (BN) provided Planetcatfish approves along with “Jools” and his team!

Scientific Name: Ancistrus cf. cirrhosus (BN)
Variety Name Designation:

• Abn, Albino Bristlenose Catfish
• Abn2, Albino2 Bristlenose Catfish
• AlfBn, Albino Long-fin Bristlenose Catfish
• Bn, Brown Bristlenose Catfish
• CBn, Calico Bristlenose Catfish
• PbBn, Piebald Bristlenose Catfish
• SRdBn, Super Red Bristlenose Catfish
• GdBn, Green Dragon Bristlenose Catfish
• VBn, Veiltail Bristlenose Catfish
• AbVBn, Albino Veiltail Bristlenose Catfish
• LfBn, Long-fin Bristlenose Catfish
• BkBn, Solid Black Bristlenose Catfish
• LeBn, Leucistic Bristlenose Catfish
• LeBnBl, Leucistic Blue Eyed Bristlenose Catfish
• LeBnBk, Leucistic Black Eyed Bristlenose Catfish

Any additions or revision to the above should be submitted to PC, for official approval.

It would be so much simpler if there were an approved listing of the varieties of these catfish for the layman so identification would be easier. What do you think?

Ron Bows

Hi Ron, I might suggest you use Bk for black instead of Bl in black bristlenose, in order to avoid confusion with blue (after all, you already use Bk for black eyes).

Also, I am confused a bit about black vs. brown BNs: On other threads, I've read that black and brown are really referring to the same fish, just using different colors to describe them (at least one post actually saying it was a European vs. American preference). Is that not the case? Because if it's true, it would be inappropriate to create separate designations for these two.

Cheers, Eric

What is the difference between a veiltail & longfin?

"What is the difference between a veiltail & longfin?" Veiltail is as I understand a long-fin with an extra long tail! Let me know if I am wrong, they could be the same but i was under the impression they weren't.

Ron

I can foresee one problem

My BN could be a brown, black, piebald, or marbled. Virtually solid colour, through an almost 'Galaxy' spots, through to definite stripes and patches.
Her colours change with ambient light, substrate colour, decor/plant resting spot, solid light/speckled/shade.

I've seen people try to pass off BNs as 'Piebald ' or 'Marbled' and sell them for a premium when my girl goes through phases as described.
Unless there is a variant that breeds true to only solid or only stripes etc then I suggest these are refered to as more of a 'standard' form.
...
VeilTail I always think of as having extended flowing tails whilst other fins assume a more normal size and shape. Longfins have all fins extended sometimes far beyond the norm to what I consider rather unsightly. (Sorry but I prefer natural shapes and colours)

What happens when anyone of those 15 is crossed with any other? 15^2 = 225!

Jools

I can see a couple of flaws in this system almost immediately. There is more than one strain of albinos on the market. This is in point because of my second point. Spot size has regularly been bred for by a few dedicated hobbyists. Even in my tanks right now, I'm continuing a line of large spot albinos which I spent almost a decade looking for after having seen pics of them. Likewise, green dragon was bred from commons with reduced spot size. Piebald, calico, and red marble are often used interchangeably, but are in fact variations on the same gene. I'm still looking for true calicos if anyone has a lead. For those that don't know, they are red marble without the red having been crossed into the line, and only show a faint cream color instead. The leucistic lines mentioned are, for the most part, aside from names being created for sales purposes, the same fish.

On top of all this, there is still a question of how to label for varying quality of the line. Leucistic, depending upon the line, has either a very pale yellow or a rather deep orange color. For that matter, they will range anywhere in between. Likewise, I've seen green dragon which actually show a green tint, and those which are more of a common brown without spots. The same can be said for super red lines. In all fairness, given the difference of color on those examples, and many others, designations would need to be applied to them as well.

I've always been under the impression these were the reasons a naming system hadn't already been established. Besides that, if a naming convention were in place, you can rest assured that someone would still post something on ebay or aquabid trying to sell common brown bristlenose under some outlandish new name just to give themselves a leg up against the myriad of other hobbyists trying to sell the same strain.

While it would be nice to have a listing of the actual gene mutations, creating a listing of the verifiable strains is a lot more daunting than a list would imply.

Larry

First I think you all are missing the point of the nameing of the varieties of Ancistrus sp. cirrhosus (BN). Yes they are varieties of a specific species, but all domestic animals are given names, and yes they are domestic animals because they are so easily, maipulated into the different forms. There is a system in place for Cory's and L-numbers but not varieties of like lets say Corydory aneaus, having red-lazers, yellow lazers, etc. Sure anyone can call anything what ever they want, and they will manipulate the system for monetary gain, but its going to happen anyways.

People look to Planet Catfish for identification information, but it is lacks information in vareity identification. My proposal is not etched in stone thats why I asked for input from you the breeders of catfish to get your opinion. Its a place to start and if "Jools" and the other experts could find common ground it could be another source of catfish identification, for those who don't know or are not certain of what variety of Ancistrus cf. cirrhosus (BN) they have.

Ron Bows

Recommend moving this to Speak Easy. Inventing common names for purposely deformed fish is not science.
-Shane

Hi Ron,

I understand your point, but I think the above comments are valid, in as much as they make any kind of naming system overwhelming if it's to be helpful (especially since so many variants can cross-breed and get diluted in quality).

Ron wrote:People look to Planet Catfish for identification information, but it is lacks information in vareity identification.

PC already has a "variety" designation beside the name

Ancistrus cf_cirrhosus

, where the person seeking to identify their BN can pick from normal or long-fin, albino, Piebald/Calico, and Super-red, with long-fin variants of each of those color morphs (with Green dragon missing from your list, but I've never seen one so I don't know how different they look; and BTW, all the veiltails shown on the PC clog seem to be just long-fins, because all their other fins are long too, not just the tail). Complicating this is the fact that, AFAIK, blue-eyed and black-eyed "albino" bristlenoses aren't the same species as regular albino bristlenoses. And as Larry pointed out, there are more than one type of albino, and yet to a person who buys an albino (without the store labeling it as a particular genetic strain), it's just "albino" - i.e., they can't tell visually whether its from one variant or the other just by looking at it.

What you're really describing is not a naming system, but a short-hand system (since the names already exist). If it's intended for the novice who's trying to put a name to a new fish they bought, I think they might be bewildered by the long abbreviations; to that end, I would think a novice would be better off with names that are written out, rather than abbreviated codes. If it's intended for an experienced hobbyist, I would think that they will know be able to figure out the labels put on the fish by the seller. And when an unscrupulous seller tries to invent a new name for some blended strain they create, then both the novice and the experienced hobbyist would be at a loss if they are using a short-hand system that doesn't already include abbreviations for a "variety" that hasn't existed before (according to the seller of this "new" form).

Ron wrote:There is a system in place for Cory's and L-numbers but not varieties of like lets say Corydory aneaus, having red-lazers, yellow lazers

True. I suppose if need be, then as PC has done with the BN, they could likewise add a variety field for

Corydory aneaus

as these varieties become entrenched in the hobby (starting with albino, obviously).
Cheers,
Eric

Shane,
I want to understand your comment relateing to the subject of standardizing the normanclature of a known species varieties or morphs as they are sometimes called, as being "Inventing common names for purposely deformed fish is not science". I respect your opinion and always have since joining PC, but I am trying to understand your comment.

I based the Identification on the udate of PC for the Ancistrus cf. cirrhosus (BN) Common name comment. As I read the updated information I noticed a patern in the common names which seemed similar, yet confusing and thought it was being resolved by PC. Variety or Morphs are found in alll creatures let alone fish and some are purposely bred like the Dobermans, Pugs and Golden Retrievers, to name a few so why shouldn't there be a system for fish. If that is the case then why is there a inclusion of a common name even listed in PC Cat-eLog at all? If you are a purest and don't believe in crossbreeding fish species I agree 100%, but when a Albino, leuscitic or even Green Dragon shows up in a spawn does that mean its a purposely deformed morph or a natural mutation of the Ancistrus gene, as said before no one can prove that.

I was only suggesting that you Shane, Jools and the other experts on Planet Catfish put there spin on a gene normanclature system that new comers and oldtimers alike can band together and support and stop all the petty confusion as to how to name varieties of our beloved catfish, whether a pure species or not. Someone has to eventually do it and it might as well be you PC Experts rather than some unknow or unqualified sub group. But certainly not me I only suggested the guidelines and didn't mean to offend anyone.

RoN Bows

bekateen,

I didn't mean to only use the abbreviated name but the full name such as Abn, Albino Bristlenose Catfish, giving them some structure are far as naming is concerned, and so they don't make up there own name for the fish.

Blue Eyed and Black eyed LeBnBl, Leucistic Blue Eyed Bristlenose Catfish was not mentioned a being albino. True Albino animals in all species are or have pink or red eyes, as you want to look at it. There is no blue eyed albino.......!

"True. I suppose if need be, then as PC has done with the BN, they could likewise add a variety field for Corydory aneaus as these varieties become entrenched in the hobby (starting with albino, obviously)." Yes exactly especially being that albino species are naturally occuring, most don't survive in the wild, but with a little push from humaity they have.

People are always going to try to cheat the system and that will always happen wether we let them or not, but if there is no system in place, and it is neglected then that helps exasperate the problem and it will never get resolved.

Ron

These are the first words of the PC Forum Introduction:

What is my catfish?

"Did you know fantastic help is an anagram of Planet Catfish? This forum is for those of you with pictures of your catfish who are looking for help identifying them. There are many here to help and a firm ID is the first step towards keeping your catfish in the best conditions."

Ron

The problem with naming domesticated varieties is getting anyone to actually conform to them. You used dogs as an example, so I'll follow suit in this explanation. Yes, Dobermans, Pugs and Golden Retrievers are all recognized varieties of the same species. However, it's only so because the AKC recognizes them as such. The picture gets more muddied when you start looking at breeds such as cockapoo or puggle. Even though everyone knows what these are, crosses of recognized breeds, they're not officially recognized. In the case of domesticated varieties of fish strains, it's nearly impossible to separate the strains because the average hobbyist liking fish isn't working on maintaining a line, or even quality in a line they purchase. They have a tank with an albino, a super red, a red marble, and a green dragon. When those breed, and lets face it, they're bristlenose, and will breed, the immediate thought is they have something different than the normal. In most cases, they go so far as labeling them as hybrid something-or-other. However, with exception of the super red breeding with the red marble, any other cross above will produce common brown. Upon hearing that, they tend to get upset because none of their fish were brown. At that point, the expert trying to help answer their question becomes public enemy number one because they didn't get the answer they wanted. This is the reason I tend to avoid ID threads, or even direct questions from people I know personally.

A good example of this, dealing directly with bristlenose, is albino red marble. It sounds like it could be a gorgeous fish, but looks way too similar to a common albino. Even with good pics, the only discernible feature is the lack of spots on a vast majority of the body, and a slight spot pattern in patches. Most, especially in a fish which would have been more marble than red, are nearly identical. BTW, red doesn't express in albino bristlenose.

At any rate, attempting to standardize a system for naming anything which isn't regulated, or carry an incentive to follow, would be re-inventing the wheel. In the case of the dogs, the ability to register them and reap the rewards of having a recognized line is an incentive, but still doesn't stop the constant classified ads for puggles. In the case of bristlenose, anything brown, and not labeled as such,the faded super reds with visible marbled patches, or the drab leucistics being cranked out large scale by unknowing/uncaring/unscrupulous breeders, are those puggles. It doesn't really matter what they're called because they scarcely match what the actual strain was.

I apologize if this sounds like a rant, but really is a point I take rather seriously. Before taking on a naming system, if pics were to be used for examples, it should be noted that most lines are so far removed from the strain that they probably deserve their own strain name.

Larry

I fear that unless you stick to a defined standard then it will turn in to a shambles and just as P_B says fish that fail to make the grade will still get the label:
eg Red = All Red, not 'mostly but it is really Red because that's what the parents were', or Albino = True Albino and not 'Blue Eyed Albino' or 'Mottled Albino'

Unfortunately I can't see who could set these standards as it is not a scientific nomenclature that would usually begin with a recognised authority. Does PC have that the connections and power to push it beyond this site/forums readership? Would outside people listen if it were unilaterally announced - 'hey folks, from now only 100% colour (or lack of) gets the label...no ifs, no buts!. If it doesnt fit then it's a 'standard/common'.
I doubt it.

I personally believe unless it is set in stone by a global body, or at least through the major efforts of cross UK/Europe parties, then it will become a mirror of what has happened in the shrimp world where the humble Bee and Tiger, clearly defined and identifiable wild variants of the same shrimp, has been so linebred there are now 'at least 72' names banded around, usually on a first bred get to choose basis, and likely more as breeders struggle to find something new - and to make it worse they also don't always breed 100% true.
Do you want the BN world to become like this...?
http://i42.tinypic.com/2mrdzr9.jpg

@dpm1I concur with you. The N. cardina examples were an excellent illustration of the difficulties one encounters when trying to organize that which probably doesn't lend itself well to such naming conventions.
I know I'm a bit jaded but i've been in this hobby so long I've seen this rodeo before. Guppies, Betta splendens, Xiphophorus spp and Pterophyllum scalare have and continue to develop new varieties too numerous to count.
We are discussing common Bushynose Plecos. They aren't worth complicating to me but then again, I am the sort who feeds newly hatched Bushynose fry to Discus.

rcbows wrote:Blue Eyed and Black eyed LeBnBl, Leucistic Blue Eyed Bristlenose Catfish was not mentioned a being albino. True Albino animals in all species are or have pink or red eyes, as you want to look at it. There is no blue eyed albino.......!

Hi Ron,

Yes this was exactly my point, and it is why I put the word albino in quotes in this context. Many LFS and individual individuals sell the black- and blue- eyed BNs under the name albino, even though the fish aren't albino. This error sometimes may be due to ignorance of the seller, but I suspect it's often due to indifference or worse - the sellers aren't interested in being accurate. No naming system is going to stop that type of abuse. Plus, that still doesn't change the fact that these BNs may be different species compared to common BNs.

Cheers, Eric

I just wanted to bring another point up about this subject:

Available species
Unfortunately, confusion has abounded (and continues to do so) with regards to identifying Ancistrus to the species level. The issue has been complicated by hobbyists attaching various, seemingly randomly chosen, scientific names to nearly every Ancistrusspecies imported. The most commonly abused scientific names being A. cirrhosus, A. temminicki, and A. dolichopterus. While the majority of wild caught Ancistrus species are difficult to impossible to identify, the situation has become slightly better over the years.

Ancistrus cf. cirrhosus, known on this side for a long time as Ancistrus sp.(3): This is the most commonly available Ancistrus species in the hobby and comes from captive bred stocks in Southeast Asia and Florida. Its specific identity remains unknown. There is a school of thought, partially because this species has not been identified, that it is some sort of hybrid. I personally doubt this based on Franke's 1979 photos, the fact that these fish always breed true without variation, and because Ancistrus sp. 3 in the Europe, Australia, and the U.S. all look like the same species. This species has been bred so long by commercial breeders that albino, long fin and even long finned albino forms have been fixed.

This is from a Shane's World Article written in 1992:

Shane's World Right Arrow Species Right Arrow Ancistrus 101, Part 1 • The Basics • Article © Shane Linder, uploaded January 01, 2002

Ron

I have one question here. How can anybody prove the fish under discussion are actually A. cirrhosis, temminicki or dolichopterus. The OP states they are cirrhosis. I wonder can this be proven? Can anybody show all these morphs are even a species at all let alone a single one? An essential pieces of information that is associated with the defining of a species is its geographic habitat location or native range. As far as I can tell the fish/color morphs in this discussion are from some fish rooms in central Europe.

I have to agree with Shane as to the proper place for this thread.

Here is the one thing I do know. As each morph has been developed and released to the hobby, somebody has made a bunch of money.

Yes, I've moved the thread but to the pleco section, as clearly it concerns loricariids.

Jools

rcbows wrote:These are the first words of the PC Forum Introduction:

What is my catfish?

Hi Ron,

Yes, but you didn't post in the "what is" forum, you posted in the "Science and Taxonomy news" forum. Academic now as I've moved the thread.

Jools

TwoTankAmin wrote:I have one question here.

I am famously poor at arithmetic, but that does not appear to be one question.

TwoTankAmin wrote:How can anybody prove the fish under discussion are actually A. cirrhosis, temminicki or dolichopterus?

They match the scientific description which, in the case of the species you mention, is relatively easy for the latter two, harder for A. cirrhosus but that species is closest to the common (European) Ancistrus AFAIK.

TwoTankAmin wrote:The OP states they are cirrhosis. I wonder can this be proven? Can anybody show all these morphs are even a species at all let alone a single one?

No, the OP stated they were A. cf. cirrhosus which, in terms of proving, is a different task. I would not like to say the common US or European Ancistrus are A. cirrhosus, but I would be happy to agree the natural form of the common fish confers with the description of A. cirrhosus (the US version is a shade browner, but variable).

Are we saying all these forms are all line bred from one species of Ancistrus? Given the history of Ancistrus imports, their ease of breeding and that they are known to readily hybridise. I can't say for sure, but the odds are well stacked in the favour of two or more species (or undescribed species) being involved. But, let me be clear, I am not talking just about the new strains appearing, I have long held the (debated) view that the common species available from fish farms is often a hybrid.

Jools

I think there are two schools of people here: people that give a crap what selectively-bred bristlenose are called, and those that don't. Myself and Shane clearly fall into the latter category. Larry (plecobreeder) is absolutely correct though, the hobby cannot hope to self-regulate these categories so that they have any meaning whatsoever in a commercial sense.

Although it's going off-topic a bit (away from made-made strains), but seeing as someone brought it up, remember that the common bristlenose is very unlikely to be A. cirrosus or even A. cf. cirrosus.

Different colored mud from the same bucket, Lot's of beautiful natural fish exist, why separate the mud and ignore one of the biggest oceans of fresh water?

racoll wrote:I think there are two schools of people here: people that give a crap what selectively-bred bristlenose are called, and those that don't. Myself and Shane clearly fall into the latter category. Larry (plecobreeder) is absolutely correct though, the hobby cannot hope to self-regulate these categories so that they have any meaning whatsoever in a commercial sense.

I find myself, as an aquarist, in the first camp. As the "database manager" on Planet, I may be in the second camp although I feel a coding system for the potentially nigh on endless strains somewhat OTT and suffers from what I jokingly call "Kathy Jinkings" syndrome.

racoll wrote:Although it's going off-topic a bit (away from made-made strains), but seeing as someone brought it up, remember that the common bristlenose is very unlikely to be A. cirrosus or even A. cf. cirrosus.

That DNA thread was really interesting but still felt a bit inconclusive.

I don't think anyone thinks the common BN is A. cirrhosus. However, it appears to be closest to it hence the use of cf which was adopted several years ago. Again, however, things were clearer with good old "A. sp(3)". The key reason here I have not changed it is a strong personal belief that it should be A. sp_hybrid(1) and I can't bring myself to change it to sp(3) without, in my view, being sure it's not a hybrid. Shane and I discussed this in person recently and it strengthened that view in my opinion. Additionally, I am firming up the belief that the original common BN is from southern species (plural) imported in Europe and bred there possible also mixed with amazon or northern species later in time. The US common BN being different in that it appears later and has its origin in probably a northern species which may then have been mixed with amazon species.

I am maxxed out timewise at present in terms of fixing site issues ahead of adding new content, but there is a "history of Ancistrus" article being worked on by Shane, Lee and myself. It's a slow burner...

Jools

Jools, I am sorry I wasn't sure if this post was in the right place when I posted it. Thanks for doing your job which you usually do so well!

I am confused about this whole subject! I never thought it was so controversal. Species are named and given numbers all the time and most can't be proven one way or another. Its just an educated guess by the expert at the time. I haven't been in the hobby that long and maybe don't think as some who have raise a particular species for a long time. I was in another field most of my life and have studied Taxonomy on my own since I was 12 years old, not of fish, but I am leanrning a lot from everyone who comments on this post.

One comment that was posted stated that maybe these Ancistrus aren't even a species! Every animal alive is one species or another or a hybrid of two or more species. Species defined in PC Glossary states:

Species Basic unit of classification in taxonomy. One or more species that are considered to have the same evolutionary ancestor are grouped in the same Genus.

Species defined by "Google"

a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial

Wikipedia state that the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, does not regulate names below that of species rank. So that means that any naming below species can be given by any individuals that want to, even subspecies. After reading all I could on Wikipedia about taxonomic nameing as a refresher, I don't know where I am going with this, all I do know is some form of normaclature should be given to the morphs of the Ancistrus Cf. cirrhosus (BN) Bristlenose species, and who better to do it than Planet Catfish!

Personally I'm 'happy' to call the 'species' whatever is needed IF there is at least a common understanding across the fishkeeping community.

Ancistrus cf cirrhosus
Ancistrus sp(3)
Ancistrus sp_hybrid(1)

It matters not on a day to day basis as long as any shop, dealer, database resource who feels the urge to add a touch of Latin as well as common names uses the same one.

However, I certainly wouldn't be impressed with a universal A.cirrhosus or A.name for anything with such uncertain ancestry and variability, and I'm glad PC and it's members do recognise such minor but important differences (against a layman's 'but the cf doesn't matter').
...
Back to the 'variant' question and I believe I've already touched on this but I would caution about setting anything but the strictest (and preferably limited number of) segregations, with non-comformers being unlabeled/'standards'/restricted to description and not named. Otherwise I fear BNs commercial classifaction, regardless of scientific and taxonomic forms, will spiral out of control a-la shrimp, Betta splendens, common livebearers and others that inbreed, hybridise or produce colour morph offspring readily in captivity.

Ron,
Just a couple of clarifications. What you are really talking about with the various Ancistrus "frankinfish" are breeds. Breeds are not a scientific classification (taxonomy) and tell us nothing about an animal's evolutionary relationships (systematics). Breed is a "term of art" and not a term of science. Hence my point that assigning common names to these fish is not appropriate for discussion in a subforum created for scientific discussions.

I think it fair to say that most of the PC crowd is in the science camp. If they weren't, they would be focused on breeding fancy guppy strains instead of discussing catfish taxonomy, natural habitats, relationships, etc. If we were on art side of the hobby there would be no debates as to the identification of the ancestral A. sp. 3 as it is irrelevant to the production and fixing of new deformities in the line.

It is the opposite for the science side. Breeds have no scientific meaning and add nothing to our understanding of Ancistrus as a biological grouping. Therefore what the "artists" want to name the breeds they have created through fixing mutations is irrelevant to them.

-Shane

BTW, minor note, the AR/PC term is variant, which is (I think) the same as what we've used breed (and strain) for in the above discussion. It has the added benefit of, technically, being available to group geographic variants just as well as it works for man made things.

It is interesting to note that the first use of this on a catfish was indeed on the common BN - I guess I've know this was coming!!!

Cheers,

Jools

Also as a side note:

I tend to use the terms 'variant' and 'breed' in slightly different terms.

Variant: Different to the type specimens in some standardised form, but equally identifiable as members of the same species - eg. colours, markings, finshape etc. Primarily based on wild occuring forms or 'naturally' as opposed to line-bred fish (although this is now rather blurred with modern breeding techniques)

Breed: Significant visual difference not found in wild or amongst non-controlled captive breeding ie. 'Man-made'. This is how I think of many domesticated animals, dogs and cats being the most common, who would struggle to survive without mans assistance or in time would revert through natural breeding to wild types and variants.

Of course in general conversation the two would be pretty interchangeable, however just as with species vs form I believe its important to know the difference for more technical discussions.

I assume that's pretty clear and matches with the more scientific and technical terms (I will 'google' it one day)